yea, well at first it would be some what democratic, but as it progressed it well get more so. and in the end it will be a Socialist Democracy.

so it will just be straight dictatorship then slowly become slightly democratic?

no no, at first it will be anarchy (anarcho syndicalist) then slowly progress to pure Democracy

How the hell is anarchy not democratic?

aye

Read both posts I said it would be somewhat democratic at first!

Why only 'somewhat' democratic?

everything would probably be in Chaos, but if thats not the case, then it can go straight to Democracy.

Oh Marx, you're using 'anarchy' to refer to 'chaos'? Fraud.Why should there be 'chaos' after a revolution?

GuestGuest

Subject: Re: Give Liche access to the site? Tue Dec 02, 2008 1:26 pm

Stos wrote:

Liche wrote:

Stos wrote:

Liche wrote:

Stos wrote:

Liche wrote:

beatnikzach wrote:

Liche wrote:

yea, well at first it would be some what democratic, but as it progressed it well get more so. and in the end it will be a Socialist Democracy.

so it will just be straight dictatorship then slowly become slightly democratic?

no no, at first it will be anarchy (anarcho syndicalist) then slowly progress to pure Democracy

How the hell is anarchy not democratic?

aye

Read both posts I said it would be somewhat democratic at first!

Why only 'somewhat' democratic?

everything would probably be in Chaos, but if thats not the case, then it can go straight to Democracy.

Oh Marx, you're using 'anarchy' to refer to 'chaos'? Fraud.Why should there be 'chaos' after a revolution?

marx doesnt call it chaos first of all, and dude.......the leninist is agreeing with you. Whar marx says basicly is this. "Can a large vessel sail the sea without a captain?" nothing else. I think liche's view of anarchism is bastardized and im positive he knows nothing about marx

yea, well at first it would be some what democratic, but as it progressed it well get more so. and in the end it will be a Socialist Democracy.

so it will just be straight dictatorship then slowly become slightly democratic?

no no, at first it will be anarchy (anarcho syndicalist) then slowly progress to pure Democracy

How the hell is anarchy not democratic?

aye

Read both posts I said it would be somewhat democratic at first!

Why only 'somewhat' democratic?

everything would probably be in Chaos, but if thats not the case, then it can go straight to Democracy.

Oh Marx, you're using 'anarchy' to refer to 'chaos'? Fraud.Why should there be 'chaos' after a revolution?

marx doesnt call it chaos first of all

I know. It's just that any anarchist using the word 'anarchy' to refer to chaos is somewhat disturbing...

Quote :

Whar marx says basicly is this. "Can a large vessel sail the sea without a captain?" nothing else. I think liche's view of anarchism is bastardized and im positive he knows nothing about marx

That was Engels, actually, and he meant it completely literally. He also brought up that anti-authoritarians couldn't be revolutionary because revolution was by definition an authoritarian act. Basically, he was just being cheeky.Also, Marx was an anarchist. He later brough up the example of a democratically elected manager in a co-operative factory in response to Bakunin's silly ramblings. That is in no way against anarchism, and he never claimed that it was such. He just brought it up in response to Bakunin's claims that 'elections' were evil and authoritarian, and lead to domination, and he was basically denying that it was domination, not at all saying that domination was a 'necessary evil'. Certainly, people saying that a revolution only failed because of one man getting sick and then claiming to be 'Marxists' would probably get him pissed off far more than Bakunin ever could have, but there we go.

all I said is after the revolution was finished there would be chaos! the anarchy is to help restore order.

Anarchy is not intended to be chaotic. In fact, I can't think of a single Anarchist who advocated chaos following the revolution. If anything, the post-revolution period is intended to be the most peaceful time, the time where society restructures itself with more communal and collectivist methods.

Modern Anarchists try to disassociate themselves from the whole "chaos" thing as much as possible. How chaos came to be associated with Anarchism, I have no idea, but it's a travesty.

_________________

GuestGuest

Subject: Re: Give Liche access to the site? Wed Dec 03, 2008 9:29 pm

Stos wrote:

ruadhan wrote:

Stos wrote:

Liche wrote:

Stos wrote:

Liche wrote:

Stos wrote:

Liche wrote:

beatnikzach wrote:

Liche wrote:

yea, well at first it would be some what democratic, but as it progressed it well get more so. and in the end it will be a Socialist Democracy.

so it will just be straight dictatorship then slowly become slightly democratic?

no no, at first it will be anarchy (anarcho syndicalist) then slowly progress to pure Democracy

How the hell is anarchy not democratic?

aye

Read both posts I said it would be somewhat democratic at first!

Why only 'somewhat' democratic?

everything would probably be in Chaos, but if thats not the case, then it can go straight to Democracy.

Oh Marx, you're using 'anarchy' to refer to 'chaos'? Fraud.Why should there be 'chaos' after a revolution?

marx doesnt call it chaos first of all

I know. It's just that any anarchist using the word 'anarchy' to refer to chaos is somewhat disturbing...

Quote :

Whar marx says basicly is this. "Can a large vessel sail the sea without a captain?" nothing else. I think liche's view of anarchism is bastardized and im positive he knows nothing about marx

That was Engels, actually, and he meant it completely literally. He also brought up that anti-authoritarians couldn't be revolutionary because revolution was by definition an authoritarian act. Basically, he was just being cheeky.Also, Marx was an anarchist. He later brough up the example of a democratically elected manager in a co-operative factory in response to Bakunin's silly ramblings. That is in no way against anarchism, and he never claimed that it was such. He just brought it up in response to Bakunin's claims that 'elections' were evil and authoritarian, and lead to domination, and he was basically denying that it was domination, not at all saying that domination was a 'necessary evil'. Certainly, people saying that a revolution only failed because of one man getting sick and then claiming to be 'Marxists' would probably get him pissed off far more than Bakunin ever could have, but there we go.

ouch harsh, and your right Engels did say that. However i dont know if you are talking about me when saying that the revolution failed because he got sick..........i said that was one factor along with the invading armies, the bureaucracy post revolution among other things.

How chaos came to be associated with Anarchism, I have no idea, but it's a travesty.

It's not, really. As long as the ruling class can convince the majority than anarchy is chaos without rules, a la Somalia, and anarchists are just a bunch of punks and goons, they're winning. This also lets them argue that the police are your friends, and the government is a great idea that is necessary to prevent things from falling into chaos, and without a word for a non-chaotic system without a government, we're stuck. Well, we could instead call ourselves 'communists', but you already know what happened to that.

How chaos came to be associated with Anarchism, I have no idea, but it's a travesty.

It's not, really. As long as the ruling class can convince the majority than anarchy is chaos without rules, a la Somalia, and anarchists are just a bunch of punks and goons, they're winning. This also lets them argue that the police are your friends, and the government is a great idea that is necessary to prevent things from falling into chaos, and without a word for a non-chaotic system without a government, we're stuck. Well, we could instead call ourselves 'communists', but you already know what happened to that.

its a ruling class ploy and misinterpreting comrades who practice propaganda by the deed and insurrectionary methods to achieve anarchism

How chaos came to be associated with Anarchism, I have no idea, but it's a travesty.

It's not, really. As long as the ruling class can convince the majority than anarchy is chaos without rules, a la Somalia, and anarchists are just a bunch of punks and goons, they're winning. This also lets them argue that the police are your friends, and the government is a great idea that is necessary to prevent things from falling into chaos, and without a word for a non-chaotic system without a government, we're stuck. Well, we could instead call ourselves 'communists', but you already know what happened to that.

its a ruling class ploy and misinterpreting comrades who practice propaganda by the deed and insurrectionary methods to achieve anarchism

Haymarket, Guy Fawkes, etc. It's a very difficult tool to wield effectively, since a lot of the time it will be construed as terroristic or un-patriotic, or some other BS to manipulate people to have resentful feelings towards those sorts of actions and people. It can be good, in certain situations, but it shouldn't be commonly practiced.

_________________"Here then is the problem which we present to you. Stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?"--Albert Einstein--Bertrand Russell--

Haymarket, Guy Fawkes, etc. It's a very difficult tool to wield effectively, since a lot of the time it will be construed as terroristic or un-patriotic, or some other BS to manipulate people to have resentful feelings towards those sorts of actions and people. It can be good, in certain situations, but it shouldn't be commonly practiced.

Those are two interesting scenarios that you mentioned, considering I would say that most people in our day who have heard of the two are probably sympathetic to both the Anarchists who were killed at Haymarket and Guy Fawkes. So maybe propaganda by the deed works, just not in the long run.

And maybe it would work in the immediate aftermath if we didn't have corporate news stations playing the dominant role in distributing "information" amongst the public, even though we all know that they're just trying to deceive the people. I bet if Democracy Now! existed back at around the turn of the century, Haymarket would not have been looked down upon by so many. I mean, the Supreme Court would have probably still found the Anarchists guilty, but who cares about the Supreme Court anyway?

Haymarket, Guy Fawkes, etc. It's a very difficult tool to wield effectively, since a lot of the time it will be construed as terroristic or un-patriotic, or some other BS to manipulate people to have resentful feelings towards those sorts of actions and people. It can be good, in certain situations, but it shouldn't be commonly practiced.

That's not a very pragmatic assessment. Its uses may not outweigh its detriments in most cases, but this doesn't mean its useless.

_________________"Here then is the problem which we present to you. Stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?"--Albert Einstein--Bertrand Russell--

That's not a very pragmatic assessment. Its uses may not outweigh its detriments in most cases, but this doesn't mean its useless.

well, if you look at propaganda by the deed and martyrdom they can go hand in hand, and lead to social upheval. case and point, haymarket, and guy fawkes; but, for strict martyrdom sacco and vanzetti, or anyone killed or exiled by the anarchist exclusion act.however, an extraordinary blend of both propaganda by the deed and martyrdom is the life of the honorable leon czolgosz (guy who killed mckinely).even though he had a shakey history, he was an insurrectionary anarchist.his last words were

Quote :

I killed the President because he was the enemy of the good people – the good working people.

czolgosz was an influence to, however slightly in directly, to luigi galleani, and the galleanists. im sure all of you know that, the galleanists were responsible for some of the most prominant insurrectionary acts in american history.

however, does this warrant praise?in my eyes, yes, if the ends justify the means.

Much love. Mckinley gave birth to american imperialism, and i hope he's burning in a lake of fire.

Beat, you think that whore Emma put him up to it?

_________________"Here then is the problem which we present to you. Stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?"--Albert Einstein--Bertrand Russell--

however, an extraordinary blend of both propaganda by the deed and martyrdom is the life of the honorable leon czolgosz (guy who killed mckinely).

Case in point. The guy saw capitalism as a game of chess, and thus made a silly little attempt at checkmate. If anything, his death proved the uselessness of such silly acts, if not that they outright hurt the socialist movement. Also, Catholics make good martyrs.

Quote :

I killed the President because he was the enemy of the good people – the good working people.

How incredibly pointless.

Quote :

guy fawkes

I don't know what this bizarre fetish over that fucker has to do with anything resembling reality, though it probably originates from 'V for Vendetta', which was a pretty great graphic novel, but pathetic movie.